- From: Don Box <dbox@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:01:51 -0800
- To: "Rand Anderson" <randerson@macgregor.ws>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Rand Anderson [mailto:randerson@macgregor.ws] > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:03 AM > To: Don Box > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org > > > Hi Don, > Thanks for commenting on this. > > My question, or I guess it was more than a question, it was a suggestion, > was that the intermediaries can do more than blindly pass the message on. Yes they can. This is by design. > That certainly has value by itself (e.g., for mixing transports along the > way), but allowing the intermediaries to do something 'interesting' to the > message contents along the way holds the power of enabling a decentralized > form of simple orchestration, a pipelining. And it parallels many real- > world > semantics of process flow. Absolutely. That stated, SOAP doesn't draw a hard line on when that message being sent from A->B->C->D->E->F->G becomes two (or more) distinct messages and when it is just a single message along a long-ish message path. My favorite example in this space is whether or not the "server" in a request/reply scenario is just an intermediary that does some work as the client sends the request message to itself. > Of course, I was just exploring what seemed to be some interesting ground > here...Are you saying that WS-Routing should not be used for this (i.e., > counts as 'twisted' ;)? Not at all. We designed WS-Routing to help generalize some of the plumbing for these scenarios (and others). > If so, do you have something fundamental against the concept of pipelining > services? No way! Smart intermediaries are goodness.
Received on Monday, 10 February 2003 18:42:12 UTC